8 thoughts on “It is impossible to know yourself, it is only possible to be yourself.”

Hi Hariod! I am not sure if I consider it knowledge. It is theory in pursuit of truth but it does not contain the truth. To know the truth is to be and it can not be sufficiently explained in concepts.

Firstly, to speak of ‘the truth’ I think muddy’s the waters. It implies a fixity which ‘being’ itself does not contain or exhibit – leaving aside all erroneous notions of an enduring self.

If we accept that, then the expression becomes ‘To know is to be’ which I think is clearer conceptually whilst coming dangerously close to putting Descartes before de horse.

Still, it is indeed – as you state – a certain knowing; and if that ‘knowing’ has efficacy, then it is knowledge. It is not conceptual knowledge of course, because in the act of conceiving, knowledge becomes an image of itself, and not itself.

What I think we’re both pointing to – and here, I agree, words always fail us in some regard – is being/awareness knowing itself as being/awareness and not as some image of itself such as a mood or mental state or concept.

This is what I meant when referring to ontological knowledge. To take the matter further necessitates speaking in the language of paradox which may not be helpful!

I had no intention of rephrasing “I think, therefore I am”. I was attempting to convey that the only path to knowing is by being. All discussions about it can do little to describe the reality of it.

It would be an interesting conversation about whether the gathering of spiritual knowledge brings about the awareness of self. I certainly hope so as that is the path I am on! But to transcend thought, or the mind, as the spiritual teachings tell us we must abandon that source of conceptual knowledge. We are pointed there by knowledge, but must let go of knowledge to experience it. Like the famous Buddhist teaching “I am like the finger pointing at the moon, but don’t mistake the finger for the moon.”